6 ms·

> Can we discuss if overweight people should pay more for sits in a plane? Can we discuss if a trans male who identifies herself to be a woman should be allowed

> Can we discuss if overweight people should pay more for sits in a plane? Can we discuss if a trans male who identifies herself to be a woman should be allowed to take part in female sport competition (box, running)? I am afraid we no longer can discuss such "uncomfortable" topics You can debate those things on reddit without being censored on a lots of subreddits. However, the reason these are such contentious topics is that 99% of the time they are aired it's either people using them to complain about SJW culture, or people trying to stir up shit. The last 1% is people who legitimately care about these people and want to discuss their wellbeing and rights. But I'm putting that in to be generous, I don't think I'm ever seen these topics discussed in good faith. You did not bring them up in good faith, for example, you just used obese and trans people to make a point. I have no reason to think you actually care about them or would ever engage in a conversation about their rights within our society.

Clampower 6y ago
The fact that gender critical subreddits were banned, (like LGBdroptheT) where respectful discussion on gay erasure were taking place, speaks volumes. In The current political climate, gay people need to hear from members of their own community that homosexuality is transphobic, because it excludes transpeople. Mainstream gay and lesbian subreddits are teaching lesbians to like "girl dick". A simple joke that gay men need not to worry about getting pregnant is transphobic because WHAT ABOUT TRANS MEN. LGBT communities on reddit are incredibly homophobic, and no community that tries to speak survives. I am So incredibly sad for young gay men and women who are being victimized by their own communit, being told that being attracted to only the same sex is wrong.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 0dayz 6y ago
  I highly doubt respectful conversations were taking place where phrases like "i don't want to sleep with a Frankenstein monster" was born. So at least be honest about "LGBdroptheT" being transphobic, if you're going to cry homophobia.
  - henriquez 6y ago
    Homosexual, bisexual and lesbian are sexual orientations. Transsexualism is not. There’s at least a coherent argument and a worthwhile discussion that bundling trans in when it has nothing to do with LGB is diminishing to both groups, thus is homophobic (and transphobic). Don’t trans people deserve their own cultural identity?
    - Eyas 6y ago
      Trans folks in the LGBT movement were an inextricable part of the movement since day 1. Partly because distinctions at the time between gay men who did drag and trans women did not exist, but also partly because the overarching theme of the movement (and the hate it received) has been the sense of 'disgust' by mainstream society of its subversion of heteronormative values. Many trans men and women lead the movement vocally when many gay men and women who could survive in the closet sat and waited. But that's the thing, the good faith discussion happened so many times, and it has been litigated many times. For many of us, trans and non-binary folks gave us many of our rights, and they did not out of a sense of solidarity, but literally because they were fighting for the same thing (really, a revolution against gender norms and expectations). As the gp said, however, this good faith conversation happens a few times (and has been litigated to death over and over, and continues to). But the domination in the "drop the T" movement is really dehumanizing language about trans people, accusing them of an agenda, brainwashing children, etc. It's really harmful, and it is things that gay, lesbian, and bi folks have been accused of already.
      - henriquez 6y ago
        Okay well I’m a gay man and I like men with penises. Only recently does that make me a bigot. I think a vocal minority of the trans “movement” is really doing a lot of damage to themselves by trying to coerce sexual consent on a cultural level. Maybe people should be more comfortable with living and letting live. To me that is how I remember the LGBT movement pre-Twitter days.
        UncleMeat 6y ago
LunaSea 6y ago
You confirmed the parent comment's position on the need to have a free speech platform by making the mistake of disqualifying other peoples opinion: > I don't think I'm ever seen these topics discussed in good faith.
lukeramsden 6y ago
> The last 1% is people who legitimately care about these people and want to discuss their wellbeing and rights. But I'm putting that in to be generous, I don't think I'm ever seen these topics discussed in good faith. Or do your existing opinions mean you view all discussions on this topic as bad-faith, exactly as the parent comment describes? > However, the reason these are such contentious topics is that 99% of the time they are aired it's either people using them to complain about SJW culture Is that the cause of the alleged 'bubbelisation' of social media networks by "censorship", or is that actually caused by the supposed censorship? PS: Not trying to imply anything, you still make a valid point.
- joepie91_ 6y ago
  > Or do your existing opinions mean you view all discussions on this topic as bad-faith, exactly as the parent comment describes? Not likely. That in and of itself is a bad-faith claim frequently used by bigots to try and evade getting thrown out of a venue, by turning around the accusation onto those calling out bad behaviour. Unfortunately a lot of peope have taken this claim at face value, and have started repeating it. The thing is, I have discussed these sorts of topics with people in good faith. The common factor is that those discussions were never in public venues, because someone who wants to discuss these topics in good faith realizes that they are sensitive and easily-abused. On the other hand, every time I've seen someone "discuss" these topics in public, there were clearly identifiable signs of bad faith, independent from the topic itself. It usually doesn't take much prodding to make the mask come off, so to say. Edit: For additional background, I'm mostly speaking with my "community moderator" hat on, here. I somewhat regularly get brought in to clean up mismoderated communities that have gotten completely out of hand, so over time I've learned how to identify bad-faith actors quickly, separately from opinions.
- esperent 6y ago
  > Or do your existing opinions mean you view all discussions on this topic as bad-faith, exactly as the parent comment describes? No, I'm quite clear about what would constitute a good faith argument. For example, regarding obese people on planes having to pay for extra seats, a good faith argument would involve genuine discussion about the impact on these people, whether it's prejudiced to do so, whether it's within the rights of the airlines to charge them extra, and so on. A bad faith argument is where this topic is brought up as a strawman when the real topic of conversation is censorship or some such. I'm fully aware that this entire comment thread, including my replies, constitutes a bad faith argument, BTW. We are not genuinely discussing the plight of obese people, we're just using their plight to further our own discussions.
BrandoElFollito 6y ago
The examples @piokoch made are very good. Seats in planes were designed for average people. It means that myself, as an average person, have the right to be relatively comfortable in that chair. If an obese person sits next to me, I have nothing against them on a human level - but the fact that they use my space. They are not comfortable either (certainly physically and probably psychologically) so if we accept obese people in our society (which is the case), they should have special chairs in planes, similar to the situation for disabled people. They should not, objectively, pay more for them even if I think that in the vast majority of cases obesity is a choice (I am somehow overweight and do not think that this is anybody's else fault than mine). This is akin (at least in France where I live) to the fact that they will be medically treated with my money (same as the ones that smoke cigarettes will be treated for heart issues or pulmonary cancer). Now, should someone who horribly stinks be allowed on the seat next to mine? No, because we do not accept stinkiness, as a society. It is completely arbitrarily, but this is how life is. The example in sports is a good one too. I think that we should not test anybody for anything because a sportman today is not a normal being anyway. They are bred to be excellent in what they do. A volleyball player will not be able to participate in a 100 m sprint and have the slightest chance. So any idea of "natural" in sports is long gone (except for purely amateur). In that light I have no idea how to deal with the women/men separation we have today. There probably not be any because a top woman volleyball player will be eons better than the amateur man volleyball player I am now. On the other hand they have no chance against a men team. Sports at pro level is such a commercial entity that I even wonder if we should care.
- rm_-rf_slash 6y ago
  Your last sentence contains the kernel of a reality that much of the internet would rather we don’t notice: that we don’t have to care about most of the stupid shit we see on our screens every day. We don’t need to engage in flame wars or virtue signaling or any of these asinine debates. People got along with their lives just fine for thousands of years without feeling compelled to debate a stranger from hundreds of miles away for 10 minutes about theoreticals that scarcely affect their daily lives. But the social media and advertising companies can’t have that. No, we as a society need to be juiced up on fear and hate 24/7 to keep the eyeballs moving and the profits flowing. Fact is the world is full of shitty people and ya gotta pick your battles. In most cases, the winning move is not to play.
MisterTea 6y ago
> ou did not bring them up in good faith, for example, you just used obese and trans people to make a point. You are one of the people the gp is mentioning. Those two are excellent points. There are a lot of people who are uncomfortable with those topics but are open to discussing them. Then people like you come out of the woodwork and accuse them of some nonsensical uptight bullshit and crap on their legitimate questions. Your open hostility then further cements their oppositional opinions. Instead of progress towards understanding and accepting, they dig their heels in and stay hateful because you pretty much told them to fuck off.
- lordCarbonFiber 6y ago
  We live in a world where google exists, hell where scihub exists. It's extremely suspicious to show up in a forum "asking questions" when these resources exist. Getting told to "fuck off" in this context is basically being told to RTFM. You can look in my comment history to find just how easy it was to compile some sources to discredit the idea that trans women in sports is some unknown taboo. If we spent just a fraction of the effort making spaces safer for marginalized groups as we do debating bad faith actors the internet would be a much better place in my opinion.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    Nobody said it’s an unknown taboo. The issue is that they have an incredible biological advantage. We should absolutely not focus on making social spaces “safer” (a misnomer, because regular adult conversations simply do not jeopardize safety), we should focus more on making people anti-fragile.
  - sgillen 6y ago
    I think the two questions being considered are largely a matter of public opinion. You can use something of sci hub etc to justify your opinion, or try to change someone’s mind (esp in this example with the trans athletes). But unless others have already held this discussion somewhere google won’t help you gauge what people think. (Obviously these particular topics have been done to death, but someone has to hold this discussion for the first time on a given platform). I do actually agree that most people that most people making a fuss about these questions online are doing so in bad faith or “mostly bad faith”. But I still do think both questions are nuanced, and I think a lot of bystanders might benefit from intelligent responses to these questions from the progressive side, but maybe at some point it’s too exhausting.
pc86 6y ago
"Complaining about SJW culture" could mean any of 50 things depending on who is saying it, and there's not enough context here to know what you're saying exactly, but I don't think complaining/debating it is a contentious thing. There is some absolutely bat-shit crazy stuff coming out of the extremist left. It's just not as overtly racist as the equally bat-shit crazy stuff coming out of the extremist right, and the Overton window being what it is it's not as heavily monitored/censored. > You did not bring them up in good faith Nobody talks about the airplane ticket thing if they care about the "wellbeing and rights" of morbidly obese people. But that doesn't detract from the facts of the point. Whether someone does or doesn't care about the wellbeing of some unnamed morbidly obese person is irrelevant to whether or not they're making a good point or argument.
eplanit 6y ago
So, speech about fat or trans people must be limited to "caring about their rights"? If you can't say something nice then you're not allowed to say anything at all?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Clampower 6y ago

The fact that gender critical subreddits were banned, (like LGBdroptheT) where respectful discussion on gay erasure were taking place, speaks volumes. In The current political climate, gay people need to hear from members of their own community that homosexuality is transphobic, because it excludes transpeople. Mainstream gay and lesbian subreddits are teaching lesbians to like "girl dick". A simple joke that gay men need not to worry about getting pregnant is transphobic because WHAT ABOUT TRANS MEN. LGBT communities on reddit are incredibly homophobic, and no community that tries to speak survives. I am So incredibly sad for young gay men and women who are being victimized by their own communit, being told that being attracted to only the same sex is wrong.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
0dayz 6y ago
I highly doubt respectful conversations were taking place where phrases like "i don't want to sleep with a Frankenstein monster" was born. So at least be honest about "LGBdroptheT" being transphobic, if you're going to cry homophobia.
- henriquez 6y ago
  Homosexual, bisexual and lesbian are sexual orientations. Transsexualism is not. There’s at least a coherent argument and a worthwhile discussion that bundling trans in when it has nothing to do with LGB is diminishing to both groups, thus is homophobic (and transphobic). Don’t trans people deserve their own cultural identity?
  - Eyas 6y ago
    Trans folks in the LGBT movement were an inextricable part of the movement since day 1. Partly because distinctions at the time between gay men who did drag and trans women did not exist, but also partly because the overarching theme of the movement (and the hate it received) has been the sense of 'disgust' by mainstream society of its subversion of heteronormative values. Many trans men and women lead the movement vocally when many gay men and women who could survive in the closet sat and waited. But that's the thing, the good faith discussion happened so many times, and it has been litigated many times. For many of us, trans and non-binary folks gave us many of our rights, and they did not out of a sense of solidarity, but literally because they were fighting for the same thing (really, a revolution against gender norms and expectations). As the gp said, however, this good faith conversation happens a few times (and has been litigated to death over and over, and continues to). But the domination in the "drop the T" movement is really dehumanizing language about trans people, accusing them of an agenda, brainwashing children, etc. It's really harmful, and it is things that gay, lesbian, and bi folks have been accused of already.
    - henriquez 6y ago
      Okay well I’m a gay man and I like men with penises. Only recently does that make me a bigot. I think a vocal minority of the trans “movement” is really doing a lot of damage to themselves by trying to coerce sexual consent on a cultural level. Maybe people should be more comfortable with living and letting live. To me that is how I remember the LGBT movement pre-Twitter days.
      - UncleMeat 6y ago

LunaSea 6y ago

You confirmed the parent comment's position on the need to have a free speech platform by making the mistake of disqualifying other peoples opinion: > I don't think I'm ever seen these topics discussed in good faith.

lukeramsden 6y ago

> The last 1% is people who legitimately care about these people and want to discuss their wellbeing and rights. But I'm putting that in to be generous, I don't think I'm ever seen these topics discussed in good faith. Or do your existing opinions mean you view all discussions on this topic as bad-faith, exactly as the parent comment describes? > However, the reason these are such contentious topics is that 99% of the time they are aired it's either people using them to complain about SJW culture Is that the cause of the alleged 'bubbelisation' of social media networks by "censorship", or is that actually caused by the supposed censorship? PS: Not trying to imply anything, you still make a valid point.

joepie91_ 6y ago
> Or do your existing opinions mean you view all discussions on this topic as bad-faith, exactly as the parent comment describes? Not likely. That in and of itself is a bad-faith claim frequently used by bigots to try and evade getting thrown out of a venue, by turning around the accusation onto those calling out bad behaviour. Unfortunately a lot of peope have taken this claim at face value, and have started repeating it. The thing is, I have discussed these sorts of topics with people in good faith. The common factor is that those discussions were never in public venues, because someone who wants to discuss these topics in good faith realizes that they are sensitive and easily-abused. On the other hand, every time I've seen someone "discuss" these topics in public, there were clearly identifiable signs of bad faith, independent from the topic itself. It usually doesn't take much prodding to make the mask come off, so to say. Edit: For additional background, I'm mostly speaking with my "community moderator" hat on, here. I somewhat regularly get brought in to clean up mismoderated communities that have gotten completely out of hand, so over time I've learned how to identify bad-faith actors quickly, separately from opinions.
esperent 6y ago
> Or do your existing opinions mean you view all discussions on this topic as bad-faith, exactly as the parent comment describes? No, I'm quite clear about what would constitute a good faith argument. For example, regarding obese people on planes having to pay for extra seats, a good faith argument would involve genuine discussion about the impact on these people, whether it's prejudiced to do so, whether it's within the rights of the airlines to charge them extra, and so on. A bad faith argument is where this topic is brought up as a strawman when the real topic of conversation is censorship or some such. I'm fully aware that this entire comment thread, including my replies, constitutes a bad faith argument, BTW. We are not genuinely discussing the plight of obese people, we're just using their plight to further our own discussions.

BrandoElFollito 6y ago

The examples @piokoch made are very good. Seats in planes were designed for average people. It means that myself, as an average person, have the right to be relatively comfortable in that chair. If an obese person sits next to me, I have nothing against them on a human level - but the fact that they use my space. They are not comfortable either (certainly physically and probably psychologically) so if we accept obese people in our society (which is the case), they should have special chairs in planes, similar to the situation for disabled people. They should not, objectively, pay more for them even if I think that in the vast majority of cases obesity is a choice (I am somehow overweight and do not think that this is anybody's else fault than mine). This is akin (at least in France where I live) to the fact that they will be medically treated with my money (same as the ones that smoke cigarettes will be treated for heart issues or pulmonary cancer). Now, should someone who horribly stinks be allowed on the seat next to mine? No, because we do not accept stinkiness, as a society. It is completely arbitrarily, but this is how life is. The example in sports is a good one too. I think that we should not test anybody for anything because a sportman today is not a normal being anyway. They are bred to be excellent in what they do. A volleyball player will not be able to participate in a 100 m sprint and have the slightest chance. So any idea of "natural" in sports is long gone (except for purely amateur). In that light I have no idea how to deal with the women/men separation we have today. There probably not be any because a top woman volleyball player will be eons better than the amateur man volleyball player I am now. On the other hand they have no chance against a men team. Sports at pro level is such a commercial entity that I even wonder if we should care.

rm_-rf_slash 6y ago
Your last sentence contains the kernel of a reality that much of the internet would rather we don’t notice: that we don’t have to care about most of the stupid shit we see on our screens every day. We don’t need to engage in flame wars or virtue signaling or any of these asinine debates. People got along with their lives just fine for thousands of years without feeling compelled to debate a stranger from hundreds of miles away for 10 minutes about theoreticals that scarcely affect their daily lives. But the social media and advertising companies can’t have that. No, we as a society need to be juiced up on fear and hate 24/7 to keep the eyeballs moving and the profits flowing. Fact is the world is full of shitty people and ya gotta pick your battles. In most cases, the winning move is not to play.

MisterTea 6y ago

> ou did not bring them up in good faith, for example, you just used obese and trans people to make a point. You are one of the people the gp is mentioning. Those two are excellent points. There are a lot of people who are uncomfortable with those topics but are open to discussing them. Then people like you come out of the woodwork and accuse them of some nonsensical uptight bullshit and crap on their legitimate questions. Your open hostility then further cements their oppositional opinions. Instead of progress towards understanding and accepting, they dig their heels in and stay hateful because you pretty much told them to fuck off.

lordCarbonFiber 6y ago
We live in a world where google exists, hell where scihub exists. It's extremely suspicious to show up in a forum "asking questions" when these resources exist. Getting told to "fuck off" in this context is basically being told to RTFM. You can look in my comment history to find just how easy it was to compile some sources to discredit the idea that trans women in sports is some unknown taboo. If we spent just a fraction of the effort making spaces safer for marginalized groups as we do debating bad faith actors the internet would be a much better place in my opinion.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  Nobody said it’s an unknown taboo. The issue is that they have an incredible biological advantage. We should absolutely not focus on making social spaces “safer” (a misnomer, because regular adult conversations simply do not jeopardize safety), we should focus more on making people anti-fragile.
- sgillen 6y ago
  I think the two questions being considered are largely a matter of public opinion. You can use something of sci hub etc to justify your opinion, or try to change someone’s mind (esp in this example with the trans athletes). But unless others have already held this discussion somewhere google won’t help you gauge what people think. (Obviously these particular topics have been done to death, but someone has to hold this discussion for the first time on a given platform). I do actually agree that most people that most people making a fuss about these questions online are doing so in bad faith or “mostly bad faith”. But I still do think both questions are nuanced, and I think a lot of bystanders might benefit from intelligent responses to these questions from the progressive side, but maybe at some point it’s too exhausting.

pc86 6y ago

"Complaining about SJW culture" could mean any of 50 things depending on who is saying it, and there's not enough context here to know what you're saying exactly, but I don't think complaining/debating it is a contentious thing. There is some absolutely bat-shit crazy stuff coming out of the extremist left. It's just not as overtly racist as the equally bat-shit crazy stuff coming out of the extremist right, and the Overton window being what it is it's not as heavily monitored/censored. > You did not bring them up in good faith Nobody talks about the airplane ticket thing if they care about the "wellbeing and rights" of morbidly obese people. But that doesn't detract from the facts of the point. Whether someone does or doesn't care about the wellbeing of some unnamed morbidly obese person is irrelevant to whether or not they're making a good point or argument.

eplanit 6y ago

So, speech about fat or trans people must be limited to "caring about their rights"? If you can't say something nice then you're not allowed to say anything at all?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]